-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Do you know what’s the difference between prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines?
- Thread starter ginfreely
- Start date
So the China vaccine is useless to me even if successful?
A therapeutic vaccine differs from a prophylactic vaccine in that prophylactic vaccines are administered to individuals as a precautionary measure to avoid the infection or disease while therapeutic vaccines are administered after the individual is already affected by the disease or infection.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
Therapeutic vaccines - Wikipedia
An effective therapeutic vaccine however could be given at almost any age and still potentially protect against gastric cancer [24], although it would perhaps ideally be given before the 4th decade of life to maximize the chance of preventing cancer. The choice of prophylactic versus therapeutic may be critically important as H. pylorican induce a number of immunosuppressive effects that helps to facilitate chronic colonisation [25], [26], [27]; such features from an established infection would potentially oppose the efficacy of a therapeutic vaccine. For this reason, protection following therapeutic vaccination is generally considered to be more difficult to achieve than prophylactic vaccination. However, proof-of-concept has been shown for reducing colonisation by vaccinating mice already infected with H. pylori [28], [29], although there is as yet no evidence of therapeutic efficacy against H. pylori in humans.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6892279/
Importantly, while there are few definitive studies, a vaccine against H. pylori that reduces the incidence of gastric cancer will likely be cost-effective in both developed countries and in LMIC. A number of reports have indicated that strategies that screen a population for H. pylori then treat are cost-effective, using a threshold of US$50,000 per life-year saved [13]. Additionally, an evaluation of prophylactic vaccination against H. pylori was determined to be cost-effective in the USA, a country with a relatively low burden of disease [30]. Given this, these data indicate that vaccinating against H. pylori would be expected to be cost-effective in LMIC with the highest burden of disease.
Why would big pharma care about cost effective when they can sell expensive cancer drugs instead of vaccines?
Similar threads
